The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-01-17
THE UNsEATINa OF MEMBERS.

THE UNSEATING OF MEMBERS.
Any attempt On the part of the Democrats
in the Senate to make reprisals for the unseat-
ing Of Mr. Meagher in the House will place
them in direct conflict with the law.
Meagher's ineigibility was SO clear that the
House would have failed in its duty had it not
unseated him and seated the contestant.
Meagher was justice of the peace when he
was elected, and was therefore ineligible un-
der the Constitution to seat in the Legisla
ture. The authorities are numerous that
votes cast for an ineligible candidate, publicly
known to be such, are thrown away. Grant
on Corporations, p 100, says: when the
ineligibility of a candidate arises from his
holding or having held public Office, the peo-
pie within the jurisdiction of such Office are
held in law to know, and are chargeable with
notice of such ineligibility.' On p. 2O8 the
emit or notorious at once causes the votes
given for the candidate laboring under it to
be thrown away" The decisions on this
point are numerous. Equally well settled is
| the law that when an ineligible can
| dictate receives majority OF votes
his ineligibility works the election Of
the opposing candidate. In Gulick VS..
New, Ind. 927, the court held that the
voter must take notice of the disqualification
of the candidate, and that votes cast for an
| ineligible candidate must be thrown out,
whether the voters knew of the disqualified
ton or not. The late Judge Perkins dis
scented on this point but affirmed the general
doctrine as follows 81. Where, at an cleo
ton, there are opposing candidates for an
office, and the candidate receiving the highest
number of votes is ineligible, but from a fact
or cause which the voters did not and were
not bound to know the result is a failure,
and gives no candidate right to the Office.
aud should be followed by another election.
know, or are legally bound to know, SO that
in law they are held to know Of the ineligi
bility of candidate, the election does not
result in failure; but, in such case, the
eligible candidate receiving the highest mum
Der of votes is legally elected and entitled t
the Office Against this proposition we have
not found single authority" and he says
there is "a cloud of authorities in
dicating its correctness" This covers
Meagher's case exactly. He was ineligible
by reason of holding public Office, fac
which those who voted for him were bound t.
know Therefore the votes cast for him wer,
thrown away, and the opposing candidate wa
elected. Ii the House had not unseatet
Meagher it would have flown directly in tn,
face Of the law, as the Democrats will if the,
deny the justice of the act. Meaghers in
! eligibility was so clear that the Republican
would at any time have been willing to sub
NIT the question to the Supreme Court, or t.
any Democratic member Of it, if that ha.
} in accordance with law. AS to retaliator,
: measures, if any course of that kind
adopted it will be inaugurated by the Demo
Gratis. The Republicans have kept strictl
| within the law, and have no desire or inten
ton to 60 outside Of it unless forced to do S
; in self defense If the Democrats keep q
clearly within the law there will be no trouble
but if they enter on the retaliatory line the
must expect, as the people will demand tina
the Republicans shall protect themselves fror
further outrage and robbery.